EA exec: Backward compatibility unlikely for next console generation

CFO also hints used games won't be around long in this world.

Those of you hoping to sell off your old Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 if and when you upgrade to the next generation of systems might need to hold on to that hardware. Electronic Arts Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgensen recently said he doesn't think the new consoles expected this year will be able to play software from their predecessors.

"An important thing to remember is that next-gen consoles will most likely not be backwards compatible… And if you [play] multiplayer on a game, you'll most likely not be able to play with someone on a different generation" Jorgensen said to investors gathered at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference (as transcribed by Gamasutra). Because of this potential outcome, Jorgensen added that the company would likely continue to put its main focus on the current generation of consoles for this year's lucrative sports releases, which need to come out before the new consoles' holiday launch to stay on track with the sports season schedules.

The PlayStation 3 was originally backward compatible with all previous PlayStations, but subsequent units have slowly eroded the ability to play software designed for the PlayStation 2. The Xbox 360 plays certain games made for the original Xbox through software emulation.

The PlayStation 4's rumored x86 architecture would likely make it more technically difficult to run software from systems with different architectures. Meanwhile, reports suggest a new wireless protocol will mean Xbox 360 controllers won't be compatible with the next Microsoft game system.

Would lacking backward compatibility actually affect the market for new hardware? Early adopters tend to rate backward compatibility as a highly sought feature, but as a new system ages, the bulk of consumers tend to eschew aging software for older systems in favor of new games. Then again, there is at least one scholarly study suggesting backward compatibility actually contributes substantially to a system's success, at least as far as portable consoles are concerned.

While Jorgensen said he couldn't talk directly about the much-discussed used game capabilities of Sony and Microsoft's next systems, he did suggest ubiquitous Internet connections will eventually put a squeeze on pre-owned sales. "I will say that the trend in the business is to have that always-on connectivity and connect with a customer, and to the extent that the software identifies a certain customer, is going to create some issues going down the road in the used game market."

While Jorgensen said he'd love to live in a world where game makers could sell games at full price without having to compete with used games, he realizes used games provide liquidity that helps move more new games.

He also suggested upgrading game engines like Frostbite to new consoles would not be a huge cost, because high-end PCs have already pushed the needed performance for those engines much farther.

96 Reader Comments

While Jorgensen said he couldn't talk directly about the much-discussed used game capabilities of Sony and Microsoft's next systems, he did suggest ubiquitous Internet connections will eventually put a squeeze on pre-owned sales. "I will say that the trend in the business is to have that always-on connectivity and connect with a customer, and to the extent that the software identifies a certain customer, is going to create some issues going down the road in the used game market."

Unless he's talking about selling software as a service a la MMOs that paragraph really seems non sequitur.

If the rumoured specs are true (x86 cpu and radeon-based gpu) it could technically be easier for the next xbox to emulate the original xbox and play games, while getting 360 games to run would be much harder. Kinda like how the PS3 can play PS1 games but not PS2. I'm honestly suprised MS were able to get any backwards compatibility out of the 360 with software emulation after switching cpu architectures. Sony were only able to do it by including a PS2 chip in the PS3.

We certainly have more alternatives on the PC, but if this happens on say, the XBox, wouldn't it (being one-license-one-player) migrate over to Games for Windows Live (or XBox Live for PC, or whatever it's called). The PC's not immune, just insulated.

I realize we've been talking about nothing but used sales in the gaming articles lately, but this story is about backwards compatibility, people. And a new PC being able to play old games is the norm in PC gaming, if not out-of-the-box then with patches or through classic-game stores like GOG or Steam's bargain bin. If that ever changes, we've got a problem.

Would lacking backward compatibility actually affect the market for new hardware? Early adopters tend to rate backward compatibility as a highly sought feature, but as a new system ages, the bulk of consumers tend to eschew aging software for older systems in favor of new games.

It does.

My BC PS3 (60GB) died mid last year, and since the new versions aren't backward compatible, I haven't replaced it. Even if they had available a version for $50-$100 more that was BC, I would've bit, but with 3-4 PS3 games, and 45-50 PS2 games, it was cheaper to buy my son an iPod, $50 in apps (which can also be played on another iPod, and iPad, or an iPhone), and a Blu-Ray player with Netflix.

These companies may think "Bah, forget the old", but they're not playing games, they're trying to make money.

How is pc any better? In many ways it is far ahead of consoles. The used game market has been dead for years there.

I was referring more to the lack of backward compatibility as expected news.

When it comes to used games, you are right that used PC gaming is basically dead. Personally, I'm fine with it, because there are so many different places now where I can buy games at ridiculous discounts (Steam, Amazon, Greenmangaming, to name a few). Reduced prices for lack of a used game market is a fair trade.

The only way I can see it working on consoles is if they rethink their pricing. Or offer some other killer incentive to compensate for the lack of used game support. The current model won't work.

I realize we've been talking about nothing but used sales in the gaming articles lately, but this story is about backwards compatibility, people. And a new PC being able to play old games is the norm in PC gaming, if not out-of-the-box then with patches or through classic-game stores like GOG or Steam's bargain bin. If that ever changes, we've got a problem.

How is pc any better? In many ways it is far ahead of consoles. The used game market has been dead for years there.

So have $60 games. As for PC being better, he was referring to backwards compatibility. Meaning, every game ever made is still mostly playable.

You can't plug your NES cartridge into your Wii U can you? I can play pretty much any PC game ever made on my current machine. I don't need tons of old machines to play those games from different time periods.

How is pc any better? In many ways it is far ahead of consoles. The used game market has been dead for years there.

Like others have said, backward compatibility is the story here. But, add to that the issue of removing the ability to sell your old games means (a) you can't sell them, AND (b) you can't move forward with them either.

It wouldn't be hard for the PS4 to have backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games but I think we're quite a ways off from being able to adequately emulate the PS3 (you know, without having to cram one inside every PS4). I really don't get the backwards compatibility argument though. When buying a new console is everyone but me eager to toss the last gen one into the trash heap? I still own several of my old consoles.

As for the whole used game thing: the publishers do realize that nixing the sales of used games is going to take a big chunk out of their new game sales, don't they? I don't personally trade games in but I know people who do and take that chunk of credit and put it towards whatever is the latest title to be released. Not being able to do that is going to have an effect on their sales. And without a used market what will they blame it on?

I don't think that used games will actually die. I think what this rumor is describing is the Project $10 EA idea and the Xbox Live Arcade system taken to the next logical step.

What I mean is that all new games will come with an activation code that ties the game to your account. You will be able to sell the disc, but it will require a new code to work on a different system, and the console networks will be happy to provide it. It actually already works that way with the Xbox Live arcade system; you can take a game and the account that purchased the game to a friends house and the full game will work. You can even leave a copy of the game there and it will work, it will just revert to trial mode when the purchasing account is no longer logged in.

It might not sound great to end users, but for Gamestop they can resell a game and just include a new activation code that they buy from MS or Sony. You could sell your own games, but buyers would have to be aware that they need a new activation code that they could buy when they insert the disc.

While I'm not a big fan of this idea, I can see this happening in the future.

No backwards compatibility shouldn't surprise anyone with a moderate understanding of the upcoming architecture changes. It's a pity, though. Backwards compatibility with physical games is simple enough for people to eschew in their minds, associating physical discs with different physical systems. Having to give up all the downloadable XBLA, XBLIG, and PSN games still technically "available" on users' accounts is going to be more difficult for nontechnical users to accept happily.

It's unlikely, but if one of the two does re-compiles of the biggest XBLA and PSN games (like the PS2 games available on PSN now and the few Xbox Originals made available for download) that are made free to those with the previous purchases, that would go a long way to selling me on one platform over another. After all, the current generation has established that these are platforms, not simply consoles. The platform more likely to let me keep my "purchases" will garner a lot more willingness from me to continue spending money on downloads.

Since that is unlikely to happen, I suppose the plan this time around will be to make sure and buy myself a replacement PS3 and Xbox 360 some time shortly before each is retired, then re-download all of my games to the new systems.

With the PS4 it is worth noting sony did buy Gaikai a while back which if used as a service, possibly rolled into playstation pro, could allow ps3 games to at least be streamed onto ps4. They could allow ps4 owners to play their ps3 games for free through disc recognition etc, though we know they wont do anything sensible like that, admittedly it would cost sony money to do this but it would give a LOT of good will if they did. Though the bandwidth costs for game streaming are still stupid in a world of 50 to 100gb limits and slow connections ( as it is for me in the UK)

When the PS3 came out, I had never owned a Playstation. Even though there weren't many games, the backwards compatibility assured me I could buy the previous generation of games for PS2, and even new games for PS2, and this would hold me over. This definitely affected by buying decision.

However, I did agree with removing backwards compatibility later, to drive down the cost of the system. As time went on, it was less and less important. I know I haven't played any PS2 games in over three years. It was more important to get the system into the hands of new customers, than to pander to the few people who wanted PS1-PS3 compatibility, but weren't willing to pay high prices.

I still think an upgradeable module is the way to go. The PS3 is obviously too fat, still, to put one inside the PS4. But a stackable module that gives it PS3 compatibility could get fairly thin, if it could piggyback off the new GPU and CPU. I'm sure a large portion of the PS3 could be done in software, and the parts that can't, could be put in the upgrade module. The promise of such a module, even if not available at launch, might help sales.

Just price the games such that customers think they're getting a favorable deal, or promote awesome deals (hello Steam) every so often and the used game arguments will fall away.

They could also grant credit/points with every purchase which slowly accrues until you earn enough points to unlock a new downloadable game every so often. This concept plays out nicely with credit card reward programs, after all. That would take the sting away.

Point being. Don't take something away, without giving something in return.

You literally just conceded that you cannot resell games, and now you're going to tell me PC is better for resellability? Is this trolling?

The point (and I have no idea how this is still something that needs to be explained) is that it doesn't matter as much that I can't re-sell my Steam games when buying a new console game, and then selling it used, still leaves me with less money than if I'd bought the same game on sale for PC.

To wit:

Buy Dishonored new on PS/360: $60Sell to Gamestop: Get $20 back. Net cost to me: $40.

I do find this trend in consoles really odd particularly as far as timing goes. I have long played games on PC and console and while I'd say I "prefer" the PC I've never been begrudging about consoles. They had their place and they served it well. Recently though PC hardware is getting so cheap. The $600 that early adopters spent on a PS3 could buy you an extremely capable gaming PC now. Controller support is very common in PC games. Steam's big screen mode etc.

Just when PCs are gaining the ability to very easily take over the place that used to be for consoles, that's when they decide to push their luck and force in a bunch of crap that consumers don't want. This might have worked for the PS3/X360 when your alternative was to essentially drop $1000+ on a gaming PC for your TV with generally crummy controller support (mouse and keyboard from the couch is pretty crap for most people) and a living room hostile UI. In the current environment, I can't possibly see these sorts of moves from Sony and MS as anything other than total suicide for their gaming divisions. It's madness. "Let's wait until our biggest competition can easily step in to replace us, THEN we'll drop the money grubbing bomb on our players and dare them to go elsewhere."

You could also argue that Apple/iOS is actually Sony and MS's biggest competition right now, but the same rules generally apply there as for gaming PCs. Madness just the same...

You literally just conceded that you cannot resell games, and now you're going to tell me PC is better for resellability? Is this trolling?

The point (and I have no idea how this is still something that needs to be explained) is that it doesn't matter as much that I can't re-sell my Steam games when buying a new console game, and then selling it used, still leaves me with less money than if I'd bought the same game on sale for PC.

To wit:

Buy Dishonored new on PS/360: $60Sell to Gamestop: Get $20 back. Net cost to me: $40.

Buy Dishonored new at Steam winter sale: $30Net cost to me: $30.

More like:

Buy Dishonored second hand on eBay: $40Sell back to eBay, with eBay taking a cut: $30net cost to me: $10

I realize we've been talking about nothing but used sales in the gaming articles lately, but this story is about backwards compatibility, people. And a new PC being able to play old games is the norm in PC gaming, if not out-of-the-box then with patches or through classic-game stores like GOG or Steam's bargain bin. If that ever changes, we've got a problem.

I still play my Master of Magic in a DOSBox.

Boku mo!I'd love to replay Alpha Centari or Civ II or even the first of X-Com on my XP PC, but the codecs and other peripheral software that the games need to even start playing, much less play using DOSBox and some form of CPU-cycle eater are no longer there.

As for that 'always on' connectivity rot, makes it sound like he expects games to go back to the mainframe-teletype days. - Lost your Saved-Games/Settings location? The Cloud was down, good luck getting those 8 hours of your life back. - Your game cannot play because it was flagged as 'pirated' more than allowed? Oh, our DRM server is down again and you need to snail mail your original receipt and box top code to prove you really own it, again. - You are playing COD 8 'The Next Squaddie Over There'? Well, research show that almost nobody is playing that anymore so we pulled the plug on the host servers. (Actually, sales of in-game objects have fallen so that profits from the game no longer meet our extremely high estimates and marketing is pushing for selling more units of COD 11 'COD3 with a fresh coat of paint') - Upgraded you machine? We have a sale on reactivation fees going on now.

I'm so glad I can play games on consoles and on PCs and that this ability doesn't confer upon me any necessity of explaining to people why my way is superior. I just enjoy myself and don't particularly care what other people do, and feel no need to put anyone down for enjoying themselves in their own way.

In terms of backward compatibility, yes. In terms of used games resell? Not by a long shot.

If I buy my games for $5-$15 on Steam why do I care about reselling them? Sorry, you're wrong, the PC is better on both accounts.

You literally just conceded that you cannot resell games, and now you're going to tell me PC is better for resellability? Is this trolling?

While PC has better pricing, there's no denying that resellability is pretty much dead on the PC.

Yes, you cannot resell games on the PC, but you missed my entire point in your desire to be right. If you buy and resell a console game with a net cost of $20 but I can buy the same game on Steam for $15, who has "won" in the end?

In terms of backward compatibility, yes. In terms of used games resell? Not by a long shot.

If I buy my games for $5-$15 on Steam why do I care about reselling them? Sorry, you're wrong, the PC is better on both accounts.

You literally just conceded that you cannot resell games, and now you're going to tell me PC is better for resellability? Is this trolling?

While PC has better pricing, there's no denying that resellability is pretty much dead on the PC.

No. What he said is that resale isn't a problem on PC when new games often sell cheaper than used console games do. Steam games are often so much cheaper than console games that you can factor in the discount for a used console game AND the cash you'd get back for selling it again and Steam is still cheaper or at least comparable in price.

The purpose of blocking used games is to force all players to pay you the producer and not someone else. That means that in a functioning marketplace, prices should drop. That's exactly what happened on the PC. More paying customers means you need less from each one of them to get return on investment. Sony and MS set the price for games on consoles and I fully expect them to be stupid about it when they launch "new purchase only" systems.

No backwards compatibility shouldn't surprise anyone with a moderate understanding of the upcoming architecture changes. It's a pity, though. Backwards compatibility with physical games is simple enough for people to eschew in their minds, associating physical discs with different physical systems. Having to give up all the downloadable XBLA, XBLIG, and PSN games still technically "available" on users' accounts is going to be more difficult for nontechnical users to accept happily.

It's unlikely, but if one of the two does re-compiles of the biggest XBLA and PSN games (like the PS2 games available on PSN now and the few Xbox Originals made available for download) that are made free to those with the previous purchases, that would go a long way to selling me on one platform over another. After all, the current generation has established that these are platforms, not simply consoles. The platform more likely to let me keep my "purchases" will garner a lot more willingness from me to continue spending money on downloads.

Since that is unlikely to happen, I suppose the plan this time around will be to make sure and buy myself a replacement PS3 and Xbox 360 some time shortly before each is retired, then re-download all of my games to the new systems.

Edit: Grammar and clarity.

Keep in mind that emulation and recompilation are not the only options for backward compatibility. IIRC the early PS2 systems achieved BC by virtue of having a PS1 system physically embedded within them. Now, since there really aren't that many memorable PS3 games, as compared to PS2 and PS1, I would be very happy indeed if they took this approach and offered PS2 and PS1 compatibility.

Since PS3 hardware is still (relatively) modern, it would probably cost too much to include hardware PS3 support, but the ancient 333mhz Emotion Engine or the 33mhz PS1 chip (which they surely still have the schematics for) would probably cost less to produce these days than the plastic bag you carry the product out of the store in.

I'd love to replay Alpha Centari or Civ II or even the first of X-Com on my XP PC, but the codecs and other peripheral software that the games need to even start playing, much less play using DOSBox and some form of CPU-cycle eater are no longer there.

I bought the original X-Com on Steam last year for $3 because I loved it so much back in the 90's. Sadly, nostalgia failed me.

But if you're still stubborn enough to go back in time, you could also check out Good Old Games (http://www.gog.com). They sell versions (DRM-free) that are tweaked to work on modern systems. For instance, I see they have Alpha Centauri + Alien Crossfire for $6.

In terms of backward compatibility, yes. In terms of used games resell? Not by a long shot.

If I buy my games for $5-$15 on Steam why do I care about reselling them? Sorry, you're wrong, the PC is better on both accounts.

You literally just conceded that you cannot resell games, and now you're going to tell me PC is better for resellability? Is this trolling?

While PC has better pricing, there's no denying that resellability is pretty much dead on the PC.

No. What he said is that resale isn't a problem on PC when new games often sell cheaper than used console games do. Steam games are often so much cheaper than console games that you can factor in the discount for a used console game AND the cash you'd get back for selling it again and Steam is still cheaper or at least comparable in price.

The purpose of blocking used games is to force all players to pay you the producer and not someone else. That means that in a functioning marketplace, prices should drop. That's exactly what happened on the PC. More paying customers means you need less from each one of them to get return on investment. Sony and MS set the price for games on consoles and I fully expect them to be stupid about it when they launch "new purchase only" systems.

Unfortunately in my experience this has not been so. I could typically find used games one month after release on eBay for about 45. If I finish it up within 2 weeks, I could sell it back for about 35, after eBay's cut. I have never seen a new game on Steam for less than $20 one month after release.

Your argument relies on the fact that every console gamer is buying new games. That's simply not true. With the death of used games on PC, you also lose the ability to buy used games.

The big thorn for backwards compatibility seems to be digital distribution this time. I mean, if they don't want to support 360 games on the Durango (for instance), I suppose I don't ever have to buy an XBLA title again.

iOS and Android have created an expectation in the market that these games will play on future devices. Not allowing for that will really do some harm to their customer base.

We certainly have more alternatives on the PC, but if this happens on say, the XBox, wouldn't it (being one-license-one-player) migrate over to Games for Windows Live (or XBox Live for PC, or whatever it's called). The PC's not immune, just insulated.

Ironically enough, this is already a defacto standard in the PC market. When's the last time you resold a Steam game? Yes, you can legally put your old copy of a PC game up on EBay for sale, but the rental market was destroyed back in the early 90's by a combination of software publishers' EULA's and court decisions that backed them up.

But we've gotten used to consoles being basically VCR's: you put in a game and play it. There's no need to worry about complicated DRM schemes or user authentication. As manufacturers make consoles more capable and more complex, we're quickly reaching the point where they might as well just be PC's. Based on everything I'm hearing so far, I'm seeing less and less difference between the next gen consoles and a living room PC.

Know what else is unlikely? My purchase of a "next generation" Xbox or Playstation. I have HAD it with them!

You know what REALLY pisses me off? I have a large library of PS2 games. My PS2 died some years ago...no problem, I used my PS3! Well, the original PS3 broke and the replacement doesnt play PS2 games. Excuse, excuse, excuse comes out of Sony as to why they can not provide backwards compatibility. But guess what? Some of my favorite games (Godhand just came out) are showing up on PSN! So the console WILL play these games, but I have to buy them all over again! I can't just pop in my old disks and go to town, no, I have to RE-BUY the very same game! No graphical upgrades, no enhancement, just the SAME DAMN GAME I already purchased!

I am going back to PC gaming. On my PC, I can go back and play ALL of the games I played 20 years ago! Oh, and I don't need to buy new controllers, a Kinect, a PS Move or any other crap to get my system to work. To paraphrase Cartman: "Screw you guys, I'm going home...to PC"!

Based on everything I'm hearing so far, I'm seeing less and less difference between the next gen consoles and a living room PC.

The difference is very clear. Many PC games on Steam go on sale. Sure, you can't sell them, but then again the PC game market has a very long lifespan.

Consoles appear to be going with the "backward compatibility is bad" concept, and also removing the resale ability of games. You need to either keep and maintain old console hardware, or walk away from games you bought for past consoles.

On the PC you can upgrade hardware without much issue regarding older games. I still play a lot of older games (DX9 era XP games) on Win7. That's 12 years of games that still work, and I bought many of them for under $10 on sale, and there doesn't appear to be any issue going forward so far since Win8 runs games about the same as Win7.

Every few years I toss in some hardware upgrades, which are also pretty cheap these days. But it's not like I have to keep my old XP computers to play old games.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.